Ok, so today the topic of doing an intentional cutaway was brought up. We have read all the "legal". 14CFR Part 105, BSR's and we see nothing that requires a "Tri" system. i completely see the reasoning behind the tertiary system, but we are only interested with the legal side of things at this point. so, im hoping someone can point us to the right spot. after reviewing part 105, it is left very open ended. you could very easily read into it whatever way you wanted. especially when discussing the definition of Reserve parachute. just curious if anyone knows of any "legal" binding literature one way or the other.

so far: Part 105... No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows

BSR's: 2. Pre-planned breakaway jumps are to be made by only class C- and D-license holders using FAA TSO'ed equipment. [E]

excerpt from a skydiving magazine article: One reason it's not more popular is the lack of suitable equipment. Although it's legal to make intentional cutaways with a standard sport rig -- one main and one FAA-approved reserve -- most skydivers would rather have two jettisonable mains and a reserve. http://www.skydivingmagazine.com/questions/ques14.htm

really hoping to get some good legal reference on this! not peoples opinions.

if you're so worried about the legal stuff.. why dont you just pack yourself a mal and go for it?

besides that, i still think it's fucking stupid, the only time i've ever thought about i was in my first year, had hardly 100 jumps and just didnt want my expensive reserve-repack be wasted. did i say it's fucking stupid already? it IS fucking stupid!

Dont know the legal side of it, but there was a guy in (I believe) Lake Wales FL that celebrated his A license by chopping a good main - and got a baglock on his reserve. I am sure someone here can provide the details as I read about it on here - or maybe it was just bullshit. At any rate, why take the chance? Your reserve is your last chance, and they are pretty damn reliable, but they are NOT foolproof...

if you're so worried about the legal stuff.. why dont you just pack yourself a mal and go for it?

besides that, i still think it's fucking stupid, the only time i've ever thought about i was in my first year, had hardly 100 jumps and just didnt want my expensive reserve-repack be wasted. did i say it's fucking stupid already? it IS fucking stupid!

There is nothing illegal about doing a intention cutaway. Part 105 says you must be wearing an approved harness, an approved reserve and one main parachute.

Sparky 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems.

No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows:

By definitiion, any time you chop a mal, you are doing an intentional breakaway.

The difference comes in the amount of time you have spent planning it.....seconds as opposed to an hour or two.

Why you would want to chop a perfectly good main with only your reserve as backup isn't too smart, I think. Of course you rely on your reserve every jump you do, but pushing the envelope unnecessarily doesn't seem like a good idea.

We had a rig which would take two mains, and we always static lined the first one to eliminate the need to have a ripcord in your hand. I use it a few times on demos,.. it was also good to test jump a few home made designs and systems we came up with.

An intentional cutaway on such a system though is no real substitute for dealing with a real malfunction, because the stress factor is so much less. When you are carrying 3 parachutes, and are cutting away at a higher altitude than you would normally be opening at is not really a big deal at all, even when you jump a deliberately packed malfunction.

Yes you are physically performing a cutaway, but it is really not that much different from a cutaway in a hanging harness, apart from the fact you are at a higher altitude.

For fun, testing or demos, fine, but there really isn't a lot of point in doing an intentional, as its not really a realistic scenario...

For someone who has never had a mal and needs one for rating purposes, perhaps that rule needs revisiting. You might as well have a power line or tree landing as one of the things you have to experience.

if you're so worried about the legal stuff.. why dont you just pack yourself a mal and go for it?

besides that, i still think it's fucking stupid, the only time i've ever thought about i was in my first year, had hardly 100 jumps and just didnt want my expensive reserve-repack be wasted. did i say it's fucking stupid already? it IS fucking stupid!

That dress looks good on you...

yea-yea, wasnt long before i've had a REAL manly reason to use my reserve anyway.. thinking about it, have you ever exited from 180ft!? i have!

This is exactly the "open ended" part that we are having trouble verifying. you ask for 5 peoples interpretation of the BSR's/ FAR's and everyone has a different opinion. i guess the real question we are looking for an answer to is "when is a 3 canopy system required by regulation?" RiggerRob has said "Most regulations and DZs require you to wear a second (certified) reserve when doing intentional cutaways. " I cant vouch for each DZ's procedures for cutaways, but i also cant find regulation anywhere that makes mention of the terch system. the debate was never in reference to what the best practice is for doing intentional cutaways, most everyone is in agreement that a 3 parachute system adds redundancy to the whole event. it was more of a "find the reference" debate. so far, it appears that doing it with a sport rig is acceptable with a C/D license, and TSO'ed equipment. just curious if anyone else could point to the correct references. most people have tended to think that it is illegal to perform the cutaway without a Tri system. but no one has been able to prove that to be the case.

Main malfunctions are never "intentional" ergo any cutaway from a malfunctioning main is an emergency.

It comes down to which nit you want to pick, The mal is simply the platform from which you depart the scene. If I am riding a mal, cutting it away is definitely one of my intentions at that point.

Pre planned is probably a better term to use...because a mal certainly isn't planned. Dealing with it is.

A DZO would be less than wise to allow you to board the aircraft with only two parachutes with the intention to cut one away no matter what.

But as far as formal regulations to make it illegal to do a pre planned cutaway without a tertiary, I doubt it is in print anywhere, simply because it is a fairly rare event, and I doubt the lawmakers have ever considered it..

The 3 parachute "rule" has simply evolved as a sensible option, by sensible skydivers, looking after their own arses.

How about the in flight transfer scenario. That could also be classified as an intentional cutaway. I've seen a couple done at close quarters by people whose reserves are due for a repack.

One in particular I remember came as close to an entanglement and bounce as you'd ever want to get without actually doing so. The jumper screwed it up completely, getting himself tangled up in his reserve, and THEN chopping his main....luckily he fell out of the entanglement.

Can someone explain or post a link which explains how this 3 chutes system actually works? I used to jump with belly reserve, but that one was not possible to be cut-off. So I wonder if you have a classic sport rig with main and (non-cuttable) reserve in which way can you cut that (1st) reserve prior the deployment of the 2nd reserve, except with a knife? p.s. sorry if this is a bit off topic question.

There have been chest mounted containers that are attached with 3-rings systems instead of the 'conventional' snap & D-ring.

This allows the user to deploy the 'chest pack' canopy, let it open & fly a little, then cutaway & open the main that would be mounted on your back in a normal location; keeping your back-mounted reserve ready to be used if necessary.

Here are two photos of the Strong Entr 3-canopy system. The 3rd photo is one I just came across; I do not think it is of a Strong system.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Back about 1980 I was contacted by some Japanese jumpers who wanted a cutaway system using two ParaCommanders on the back & a chest pack on the front. I built the harness with one ParaCommander risers attached via 1 1/2 shots & the other ParaCommander risers attached via 3-ring system. The idea was to cutaway with the 1 1/2 shots first, then cutaway the 2nd ParaCommander, if necessary, using the 3-ring system. Most rigs in Japan at that time were still using 1 1/2 shots.

Not a specific reply to you Jerry(previous poster) but off that line of thought.

Is there a (current)legal point at which premeditated intention to use your reserve makes it no longer a 'reserve'. If you leave the aircraft with the 100% intention of deploying this reserve chute can it be said to be held in reserve? Could it be called just a second planned main deployment? (regardless of planform, branding, naming, being packed by a certified rigger ect)

By definitiion, any time you chop a mal, you are doing an intentional breakaway.

The difference comes in the amount of time you have spent planning it.....seconds as opposed to an hour or two.

Why you would want to chop a perfectly good main with only your reserve as backup isn't too smart, I think. Of course you rely on your reserve every jump you do, but pushing the envelope unnecessarily doesn't seem like a good idea.

We had a rig which would take two mains, and we always static lined the first one to eliminate the need to have a ripcord in your hand. I use it a few times on demos,.. it was also good to test jump a few home made designs and systems we came up with.

An intentional cutaway on such a system though is no real substitute for dealing with a real malfunction, because the stress factor is so much less. When you are carrying 3 parachutes, and are cutting away at a higher altitude than you would normally be opening at is not really a big deal at all, even when you jump a deliberately packed malfunction.

Yes you are physically performing a cutaway, but it is really not that much different from a cutaway in a hanging harness, apart from the fact you are at a higher altitude.

For fun, testing or demos, fine, but there really isn't a lot of point in doing an intentional, as its not really a realistic scenario...

For someone who has never had a mal and needs one for rating purposes, perhaps that rule needs revisiting. You might as well have a power line or tree landing as one of the things you have to experience.

I've had one individual that put forth the argument that since the FAA regs indicate a single harness, dual canopy system, adding a third canopy might be seen as a violation...

Legal question asside, having chopped from both a real mal and an intentional... I found the intentional much scarrier... it was the anticipation that got to me. With the real mal, there was no time to think about it only time to execute the procedures. The cutaway, well... you could do it now, or later or just land it... (why I used a too small to land for my first... no way was I gonna chicken out under a 24' flat at my 254-lb exit weight)

Very fun, but get a rigger who has experience to work with you before trying it.

Here are two photos of the Strong Entr 3-canopy system. The 3rd photo is one I just came across; I do not think it is of a Strong system.

JerryBaumchen

That loooks like a good system. Ours was built back in the early 70's, initially for demos, out of a B4 H & C, with two mains and two sets of 1 1/2 shots, and a normal belly wart on the front.

The sight of it would prolly scare the crap out of people today, but it worked well. I did quite a few demos with it, showing "emergency" procedures, which wasn't strictly accurate, but the crowds didn't know, and thought it was great.....We always let them know what we were planning, of course...

Can someone explain or post a link which explains how this 3 chutes system actually works? I used to jump with belly reserve, but that one was not possible to be cut-off. So I wonder if you have a classic sport rig with main and (non-cuttable) reserve in which way can you cut that (1st) reserve prior the deployment of the 2nd reserve, except with a knife? p.s. sorry if this is a bit off topic question.

I've seen one build from a wings. It has 5 handles. Throw-out for the 1st(main). A set of cut-away and reserve handle outside for cut the 1st and deploy, the 2nd,"reserve". A set of cut-away and reserve handle inside for cut the 2st and deploy, the 3nd(reserve).

I was built for tandem in mind. You suppose to use the outer set first.

... How about the in flight transfer scenario. That could also be classified as an intentional cutaway. I've seen a couple done at close quarters by people whose reserves are due for a repack.

One in particular I remember came as close to an entanglement and bounce as you'd ever want to get without actually doing so. The jumper screwed it up completely, getting himself tangled up in his reserve, and THEN chopping his main....luckily he fell out of the entanglement.